Spirituality
06 May 06
06 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI haven't gotten my head around the implications of this theory yet. Would it help in reconciling the Old Testament's claims of people living to be hundreds of years old with our knowledge of contemporary human life spans? Or would it exacerbate the disparity, or have no bearing?
Here's an interesting and relevant article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp
06 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think sonhouse has a good point. If VSL is correct, it probably isn't changing fast enough for the universe to be less than a billion years old. Thus it's not going to support YEC. Now with respect to your questions, I have no idea.
I haven't gotten my head around the implications of this theory yet. Would it help in reconciling the Old Testament's claims of people living to be hundreds of years old with our knowledge of contemporary human life spans? Or would it exacerbate the disparity, or have no bearing?
06 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes it was what I wanted; I don't really see how you can give yourself
[b]You have a answer for the direct question you acknowledge you recieved, or should I just simply accept this as your way to give as good as you claim you have recieved?
Yes, and yes. There's no "or" about it.
If you're trying to get me to answer this question
Who said that the speed of light has moved a different speeds?
Then ...[text shortened]... st of your posts. I think part of the reason is that it's not grammatically sound.[/b]
a pass on ambiguity in questions, answers, and vagueness in
statements like you just did, then hold others to a standard you
yourself don't to live up to. If all you have is a feeling that someone
here at RHP made that statement you should have been clear on that
instead of making a clearly false statement that, “The Young Earth
Creationists of RHP have long been suggesting that light in the past
moved at a different speed.” When in fact you just think or suspect
someone had at the time of your making that statement! I know it is
easier to defeat statements when you get to put words in other
people’s mouths than take on what they actually say, but you should
attempt to do that instead anyway, and stop charging people with
non-direct answers then you also do the same!
Kelly
07 May 06
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYes it was what I wanted; I don't really see how you can give yourself a pass on ambiguity in questions, answers, and vagueness in
Yes it was what I wanted; I don't really see how you can give yourself
a pass on ambiguity in questions, answers, and vagueness in
statements like you just did, then hold others to a standard you
yourself don't to live up to. If all you have is a feeling that someone
here at RHP made that statement you should have been clear on that
instead of making a ...[text shortened]... ad anyway, and stop charging people with
non-direct answers then you also do the same!
Kelly
statements like you just did, then hold others to a standard you
yourself don't to live up to.
I live up to those standards with everyone but you. In fact, I live up to them with you more than you do with me. I only stopped living up to them with you because you refuse to live up to them with me.
If all you have is a feeling that someone
here at RHP made that statement you should have been clear on that
instead of making a clearly false statement that, “The Young Earth
Creationists of RHP have long been suggesting that light in the past
moved at a different speed.”
All right. I think that I remember that a YECist had mentioned the speed of light changing as a possibility which would allow for YEC to be consistent with observations in some thread or other that I cannot remember.
That better? If you'd like me to continue to treat your comments and questions with the respect I just did with your last one, please learn to use proper English and answer questions clearly with statements - not questions - so that your meanings are communicated more clearly.
By the way, my statement was not unclear or unambiguous; it was (or may have been) simply wrong. Because I answered your question clearly, you were able to determine that my statement was wrong and challenge me on it. Your challenge required my honest and open answer. Because you refuse to give such answers, you are able to some extent to avoid being challenged or at least to appear like you haven't been challenged to people who are sympathetic with you. This is deceptive and dishonest.
07 May 06
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're one of many here who have suggested that the light might have not travelled at the same speed in the past. Unsurprising that when directly called on it, you try to deny it. Or maybe you are soooooooooooooo dumb you don't remember.
Yes it was what I wanted; I don't really see how you can give yourself
a pass on ambiguity in questions, answers, and vagueness in
statements like you just did, then hold others to a standard you
yourself don't to live up to. If all you have is a feeling that someone
here at RHP made that statement you should have been clear on that
instead of making a ...[text shortened]... ad anyway, and stop charging people with
non-direct answers then you also do the same!
Kelly
07 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you remember which thread that was? I remember you and I both participating in one thread about this topic in the past.
You're one of many here who have suggested that the light might have not travelled at the same speed in the past. Unsurprising that when directly called on it, you try to deny it. Or maybe you are soooooooooooooo dumb you don't remember.
07 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHere's one with dj2becker (starting on page 7) and Darfius (earlier) making the claim that the speed of light might have changed (CalJust does, too citing Humphries' crackpot book): http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20050&page=1
Do you remember which thread that was? I remember you and I both participating in one thread about this topic in the past.
I'm sure there's others.
07 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI live up to those standards with everyone but you. In fact, I live up to them with you more than you do with me. I only stopped living up to them with you because you refuse to live up to them with me.
[b]Yes it was what I wanted; I don't really see how you can give yourself a pass on ambiguity in questions, answers, and vagueness in
statements like you just did, then hold others to a standard you
yourself don't to live up to.
I live up to those standards with everyone but you. In fact, I live up to them with you more than you do with me. I n't been challenged to people who are sympathetic with you. This is deceptive and dishonest.[/b]
I'll tell you what, I'll attempt to not make you the subject if you do
the same with me! I have no desire to call into question your english
skills, typing skills, your ability to get a point across. All of that can
change because your tired, you are thinking of more than one subject
at once, just plain and simple have a brain fart, just as I from time to
time run through the same things. It isn't my desire to not answer
you directly if you have a point you want my opinion on. I know I've
come to this place read something I wrote and wondered why I wrote it
the way I did, because I wrote it when I first woke up in the morning
or after a very long work day/night.
I'm not going to bother trying to make you out to be the bad guy,
I don't believe you are.
Kelly
07 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you noticed, in the 'answers in Genesis' they want to show C going not just a few meters/second faster which would do nothing to build up the young earthers argument, they want C to be BILLIONS of times faster so it can all have started out 6000 years ago. If there was that much change in C it would be so obviously changing, we would see big time differances between the time the first estimates of C were done a couple hundred years ago and now. It wouldn't much matter WHAT kind of curve it followed, it would have been measured a century ago.
You're one of many here who have suggested that the light might have not travelled at the same speed in the past. Unsurprising that when directly called on it, you try to deny it. Or maybe you are soooooooooooooo dumb you don't remember.
07 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderCare to quote me on that? I may have, but I do not recall.
You're one of many here who have suggested that the light might have not travelled at the same speed in the past. Unsurprising that when directly called on it, you try to deny it. Or maybe you are soooooooooooooo dumb you don't remember.
You seem to have access to me saying that, care to bring
it out so that we call can see it? I seem to you recall you
making other claims about things I have said and were
unable to produce them! Maybe you have your ducks in
row this time before opening your mouth? Having been more
in more than a few of these discussions it is possible I could
have said that.
Kelly
07 May 06
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy would any rate need change if the universe started 6000
If you noticed, in the 'answers in Genesis' they want to show C going not just a few meters/second faster which would do nothing to build up the young earthers argument, they want C to be BILLIONS of times faster so it can all have started out 6000 years ago. If there was that much change in C it would be so obviously changing, we would see big time differa ...[text shortened]... uldn't much matter WHAT kind of curve it followed, it would have been measured a century ago.
years ago? You don't happen to know exactly what the universe
looked like 6000 years ago do you?
Kelly
07 May 06
There is a slight problem here. If C really has changed, then the light that's reaching us from all different stars at different distances will all be different ages, correlated with distance by a non-linear relationship. If that's the case, it means that the stars that we think are very far away are not necessarily very far away. They must therefore be very weak stars, although the spectral emissions would seem to suggest that this is not the case. What it boils down to is this, if the speed of light has changed as much as some young earthers suggest, then the properties of that light must also have changed by exactly the right amount to give the impression that these are normal stars far, far away.
07 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt's a miracle!
There is a slight problem here. If C really has changed, then the light that's reaching us from all different stars at different distances will all be different ages, correlated with distance by a non-linear relationship. If that's the case, it means that the stars that we think are very far away are not necessarily very far away. They must therefore ...[text shortened]... by exactly the right amount to give the impression that these are normal stars far, far away.